CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

I. Related Literature

a. The Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan is the oldest specialized anti-corruption court in the world. 1 It

was first conceptualized during the administration of then President Ferdinand Marcos

and its creation was mandated by the 1973 Constitution, to wit:

“The National Assembly shall create a special court,

to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction
over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt
practices and such other offenses committed by public
officers and employees, including those in government-
owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as
may be determined by law”2

It is created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1486 issued by then President

Marcos by virtue of the emergency legislative power granted unto him under

Amendment No.6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution 3. The court began

its operation in 19794.

It was initially set on the same level as what were known as Courts of First

Instance5, now referred as Regional Trial Courts, but was shortly elevated to that with

1
Matthew C. Stephenson, 2016, “Specialized anti-corruption courts: Philippines”, U4 Brief, 2016.
2
Article 13, Section 5, 1973 Philippine Constitution, January 17, 1973.
3
Reynaldo Santos, Jr. “Get to know the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan”, retrieved from
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/60572-know-sandiganbayan-graft-plunder.
4
Matthew C. Stephenson, 2016, “Specialized anti-corruption courts: Philippines”, U4 Brief, 2016, p.1.
5
Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1486, Creating A Special Court To Be Known As "Sandiganbayan" And For Other
Purposes, June 11, 1978.
the Court of Appeals.6 Despite this fact, however, it functions mainly as a trial court 7. It

directly hears and tries criminal and civil cases over which it exercises exclusive and

original jurisdiction. Presently, the Sandiganbayan exercises exclusive original

jurisdiction over the following:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as

the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and

Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code,

where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following

positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim

capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of

regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ’27’

and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act

of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

(a) Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of the

sangguniang panlalawigan, and provincial treasurers,

assessors, engineers, and other provincial department

heads;

(b) City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang

panlungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers, and

other city department heads;

6
Section 1, Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
7
Section 4, Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
 (c) Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position

of consul and higher;

(d) Philippine army and air force colonels, naval captains,

and all officers of higher rank;

(e) Officers of the Philippine National Police while occupying

the position of provincial director and those holding the

rank of senior superintendent and higher;

(f) City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants, and

officials and prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman

and special prosecutor;

(g) Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of

government-owned or controlled corporations, state

universities or educational institutions or foundations.

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade

’27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position

Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of

the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions,

without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ’27’ and

higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act

of 1989.
 b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other

crimes committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in

subsection a. of this section in relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with

Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.

The particular criminal acts being tried under the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan

are the following:

1. Bribery of public officials penalized under the Revised Penal Code 8;

2. Acts enumerated under Republic Act No. 3019 including the following:

a. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to

perform an act constituting a violation of rules, or an offense in

connection with official duties

b. Requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or

benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with

any contract or transaction between the government and any

other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has

to intervene under the law

c. Requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or

material benefit, from any person for whom the public officer

has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any

government permit or license

d. Accepting or having any member of his family accept

employment in a private enterprise that has pending official

8
Articles 210-212, Title VII, Revised Penal Code, December 8, 1930.
 business with him, during the pendency thereof or within one

year after its termination

e. Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

government, or giving any private party any unwarranted

benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his

functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross

inexcusable negligence

f. Neglecting or refusing to act within a reasonable time on any

matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining some

pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose

of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor

of or discriminating against any other interested party

g. Entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or

transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the

same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit

thereby

h. Having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract

or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes

part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited from

having any interest

i. Becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material

interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a

board, panel or group of which he is a member, even if he

 votes against the same or does not participate in the action of

the board, committee, panel or group

j. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege

or benefit in favor of any person not qualified

k. Divulging to unauthorized persons valuable information of a

confidential character acquired by his office or by him on

account of his official position, or releasing such information in

advance of its authorized release date;

3. Act of public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting,

directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or

anything of monetary value from any person:

a. in the course of their official duties; or

b. in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any

transaction which may be affected by, the functions of their

office; prohibited under Republic Act 6713 (The Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and

Employees).

4. Act of giving, or offering to give, to a public official or employee, a gift,

present or other valuable thing on any occasion punished under

Presidential Decree No. 46 (Giving of Gifts on any Occasion),

including Christmas, when such gift, present or other valuable thing is

given by reason of the public official/employee’s position, regardless

of whether or not the same is for past favour or the giver hopes or
 expects to receive a favour or better treatment in the future from the

public official or employee concerned, in the discharge of his official

functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or

entertainment in honour of the public official or employee, or of his

immediate relatives;

5. Act of who acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the total of at least PHP 50

million through overt or criminal acts which is known as Plunder

punished by Republic Act 7080.9

The Sandiganbayan exercises appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,

resolutions or orders of the RTC whether in the exercise of their original or appellate

jurisdiction over crimes and civil cases falling within the original exclusive jurisdiction of

the Sandiganbayan but which were committed by public officers below Salary Grade

2710.

a. The Amendment of Section 4, PD 1606: when referred to

regular trial courts

The jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is originally provided by Section 4 of

Presidential Decree No. 160611. Said decree is issued by then President Marcos in

order to revise PD 148612 – the decree which created Sandiganbayan. The first law

9
Rodrigo Quimbo, Miguel Galvez, Camille Bianca Gatmaitan Santos, “Anti-Corruption in the Philippines” retrievd
from https://globalcompliancenews.com/anti-corruption/anti-corruption-in-the-philippines/.
10
Section 2 (amending Section 4 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 10660, An Act Strengthening Further The Functional
And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Further Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended,
And Appropriating Funds Therefor, April 16, 2015.
11
Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be Known as “Sandiganbayan” and for Other
Purposes
12
Creating a Special Court to be known as "Sandiganbayan" and for other purposes, June 11, 1978
amending the court’s jurisdiction is Republic Act 8249 13. Seven years later, the said

section is amended again by Republic Act No. 10660 14.

Under PD 1606, there is no rule providing which confers the regular courts of any

jurisdiction originally mandated for the Sandiganbayan.

The jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan may be considered to be the most amended

provision from the 1973 Constitution to RA 8249 of 1997 15. In the case of Inding vs

Sandiganbayan16, the application of the special court’s jurisdiction over the officials that

may be tried before it was put into issue.

Petitioner Inding moved to dismiss the case being charged against him and for

the case to be referred with either the Regional Trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court.

The primary basis of such motion is allegedly lack of jurisdiction over him or the public

official being charged. He asserted that under Republic Act No. 7975, which amended

Presidential Decree No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan exercises original jurisdiction to try

cases involving crimes committed by officials of local government units only if such

officials occupy positions with SG 27 or higher, based on Rep. Act No. 6758, otherwise

known as the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. He contended that

under Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, the

RTC, not the Sandiganbayan, has original jurisdiction over the crime charged against

him.

13
An Act further defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending for the purpose Presidential Decree No.
1606, as amended, providing funds therefor, and for other purposes, February 5, 1997
14
An Act Strengthening Further the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Further
Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor, July 28, 2014
15
Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, retrieved from http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/aboutsb.html
16
Ricardo S. Inding vs The Honorable Sandiganbayan and The People of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 143047 : July 14,
2004
 Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying the petitioners omnibus motion.

According to the court, the Information alleged that the petitioner has a salary grade of

27. Furthermore, Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 7975, which amended Section 4 of P.D. No.

1606, provides that the petitioner, as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of

Dapitan City, has a salary grade of 27.

The petitioner filed a Supplemental Motion to his omnibus motion, citing Rep. Act

No. 8294 and the ruling of this Court in Organo v. Sandiganbayan, where it was

declared that Rep. Act No. 8249, the latest amendment to the law creating the

Sandiganbayan, collated the provisions on the exclusive jurisdiction of the

Sandiganbayan, and that the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as a trial court

was made to depend not on the penalty imposed by law on the crimes and offenses

within its jurisdiction but on the rank and salary grade of accused government officials

and employees.

The main issue raised and resolved in this case is whether the Sandiganbayan

has original jurisdiction over the petitioner, a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod

of Dapitan City, who was charged with violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019,

otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Court ruled in the affirmative and first discussed the reckoning point in

determining which law shall govern the rule on jurisdiction. The crime charged in this

case was committed when RA 7975 was still the applicable law. The said law

specifically included a list of public officers regardless of their salary grades, including

members of Sangguniang Panglungsod, to be tried originally at the Sandiganbayan in

cases of violation of RA 3019. The Court, in elaborating the reason behind the said
inclusion, cited the sponsorship speech of Senator Raul Roco for Senatorial Bill No. 844

which was adopted and eventually became RA 8249, to wit:

“ To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No.

7975 was enacted for that Court to concentrate on the larger
fish and leave the small fry to the lower courts.This law
became effective on May 6, 1995 and it provided a two-pronged
solution to the clogging of the dockets of that court, to wit:
It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over public
officials whose salary grades were at Grade 26 or lower,
devolving thereby these cases to the lower courts, and retaining
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only over public officials
whose salary grades were at Grade 27 or higher and over other
specific public officials holding important positions in
government regardless of salary grade 26.”

The Court further emphasized that said inclusion was deemed appropriate by the

legislature since those public officers enumerated therein are considered by them as big

fish and their positions important and for them to avoid using their influences in the trials

of their cases.

b. Sandiganbayan as a specialized anti-corruption court

Sandiganbayan has general jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving

graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and

employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation

to their office as may be determined by law. 17 Its creation is relatively connected with the

anti-graft statute18 passed in 1955. The necessity in formally creating instruments as

handle corruption is validated by the court in a 1968 decision 19, viz:

17
Article 13, Section 5, 1973 Philippine Constitution, January 17, 1973.
18
Republic Act No. 1379, An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor Of The State Any Property Found To Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer Or Employee And Providing For The Proceedings Therefor., June 17,
1955.
19
Morfe vs Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968.
 "Nothing can be clearer therefore than that the
AntiGraft Act of 1960 like the earlier statute was precisely
aimed at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for
official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in
the public service. It is intended to further promote morality
in public administration. A public office must indeed be a
public trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal to be
pursued commands the assent of all. The conditions then
prevailing called for norms of such character. The times
demanded such a remedial device."

As stated in its creating statute, “the New Constitution declares that a public

office is a public trust and ordains that public officers and employees shall serve with

the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain at

all times accountable to the people;” 20 and thus, the necessity of creating the

Sandiganbayan is realized as to attain the highest norms of official conduct required of

public officers and employees.21 Sandiganbayan was created to maintain integrity,

honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy and weed out misfits and undesirables in

government service (1973 Constitution (Art. XIII, sec. 5) and 1987 Constitution (Art. XI,

sec. 4)) and ultimately, in order to continue the combat against the evils of graft and

corruption.

b.1. Sandiganbayan’s authority to promulgate its rules

The authority to promulgate rules that may be applied in courts is vested upon

the Supreme Court22. Such power includes the making of rules concerning the

protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, among all others. Such power is

20
Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
21
Ibid.
22
Article 8, Section 5(5), 1987 Philippine Constitution, October 12, 1986.
limited to provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of

cases and such rules must not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights 23.

In order to meet the particularities of its special jurisdiction, it is authorized by

law24 to promulgate its own rules to govern its procedures in handling such cases as

well as for its internal operations. This authority is conferred as follows:

Section 9. Rule-making Power. The Sandiganbayan

shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure
and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of Court shall
govern its proceedings.

Section 10. Authority over internal affairs. The

Sandiganbayan shall administer its own internal affairs and may
adopt such rules governing the constitution of its divisions, the
allocation of cases among them, the rotation of justices and
other matters relating to its business.

This authority was, however, amended by Section 4 of RA 7975 25 which rule still

presently stands. The amendment provides that:

Section 4. Section 9 of the same Decree is hereby

amended to read as follows:

"Sec. 9. Rules of Procedure. - The Rules of Court

promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and
proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan. The
Sandiganbayan shall have no power to promulgate its own
rules of procedure, except to adopt internal rules
governing the allotment of cases among the divisions, the
rotation of justices among them, and other matters relating
to the internal operations of the court which shall be inforced
until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court."

23
Justice Antonio E. B. Nachura, 2015, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, (Quezon City: VJ Graphic Arts, Inc.), p. 389.
24
Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
25
An Act To Strengthen The Functional And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For That
Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, March 30, 1995.
 This authority to promulgate internal rules is presumed to be as limited as that of

the authority of the Supreme Court in promulgating rules: to provide a simplified and

inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases and such rules must not

diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.

b.1.a. The Constitutional Rights of an accused

1. The right to due process of law

Due process is enshrined in the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights

providing therein that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due

process of law.”26 It is defined as “A law which hears before it condemns, which

proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”27 “Responsiveness to the

supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice” 28 and the “…embodiment of

the sporting idea of fair play.”29

Due process of law has two general aspects: Substantive and Procedural. The

first signifies restriction on government’s law-and rule-making powers. The latter refers

to restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. 30

Under procedural due process, the following are required:

1. An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine

the matter before it;

2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and

over the property which is the subject matter of the proceeding;

26
Article 3, Section 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution, October 12, 1986.
27
Darmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518.
28
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association vs City of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 20, 1967.
29
Justice Antonio E. B. Nachura, 2015, Outline Reviewer in Political Law, (Quezon City: VJ Graphic Arts, Inc.), p. 124.
30
Ibid. at 126.
 3. The defendant must be given the chance to be heard; and

4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

Due process, in criminal cases, guarantees the accused a presumption of

innocence until the contrary is proved.31 It commands that no man shall lose his liberty

unless the Government has borne the burden of ... convincing the factfinder of his guilt.'

To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable, for it 'impresses on the

trier of fact the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude of the facts in

issue.32

Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the

contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor made an

object of public's attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not by any

outside force or influence but only by evidence and argument given in open court,

where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is demanded. 33

2. The right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty beyond

reasonable doubt

Together with other democratic countries, the Philippines adopted the doctrine of

presumption of innocence in its Constitution, viz:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right
to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
31
Republic of the Philippines vs Fe Roa Gimenez and Ignacio B. Gimenez, G.R. No. 174673, January 11, 2016.
32
Dorsen & Rezneck, In Re Gault and the Future of Juvenile Law, 1 Family Law Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 1, 26 (1967).
33
Re: Request Radio-Tv Coverage Of The Trial Of In The Sandiganbayan Of The Plunder Cases Against The Former
President Joseph E. Estrada. Secretary Of Justice Hernando Perez, Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster Ng Pilipinas, Cesar
Sarino, Renato Cayetano And Atty. Ricardo Romulo Vs. Joseph E. Estrada And Integrated Bar Of The Philippines,
A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001
 to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided, that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.”34

The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic

constitutional principle35. The fundamental nature of this right is supported by Article

14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 36.

This right of an accused has been established way before and features

prominently in the legal systems of most modern liberal democracies. Its evident

significance is manifested by the adoption of countries, especially the democratic ones,

of this doctrine in their very own constitutions. In the case of Coffin vs United States37, it

is established that “the principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the

accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at

the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” 38

This right is guaranteed by due process until the contrary is proven in a trial, not

lifted above its individual settings nor made an object of public's attention and where the

conclusions reached are induced not by any outside force or influence but only by

evidence and argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is

demanded39.
34
Section 14(2), Article 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution
35
Section 14(2), Article 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution
36
“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law.”
37
156 U.S. 432 (1895) cited in the case of People of the Philippines vs Carlito Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017
38
Ibid.
39
Re: Request Radio-Tv Coverage Of The Trial Of In The Sandiganbayan Of The Plunder Cases Against The Former
President Joseph E. Estrada. Secretary Of Justice Hernando Perez, Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster Ng Pilipinas, Cesar
Sarino, Renato Cayetano And Atty. Ricardo Romulo Vs. Joseph E. Estrada And Integrated Bar Of The Philippines,
A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001
 The Human Rights Committee40 has defined the presumption of innocence to

mean that the “burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused has the benefit of

the doubt”.41 Aside from such, the panel, jury or judge must approach the case without

negative predisposition drawn from the accused 42 or in other words they are expected to

have unprejudiced minds. The right to be presumed innocent serves a two-fold purpose:

first is to protect the accused or individual charged of a criminal offense; and second is

to maintain public confidence in ensuring integrity and security of the legal system 43.

It is regarded that it is not only the accused who benefits from the presumption of

innocence but the community as a whole. This is because the community has an

interest to protect its criminal justice system by maintaining the reasonable doubt

standard since it serves to protect its members form activity which injures them without

justifiable cause.44 By maintaining said standard, there can be no residue of reasonable

doubt and it will utmost ensure the avoidance of the reasonable possibility that an

innocent person may end up being punished of a crime he did not commit. It is further

opined that if conviction is allowed notwithstanding reasonable doubt, “right thinking

members of the community would then, justifiably, withdraw their trust and confidence

in the criminal law”.45

40
The Human Rights Committee is an authoritative body. See United States vs Bakeas, 987 F. Supp. 44, 46 n.4 (D.
Mass 1997) - “The HRC has the ultimate authority to decide whether parties’ clarifications or reservations have any
effect”
41
See General Comment (See Maria vs McElroy 68 F. Supp. 2d 206, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) – General Comments and
decisions in individual cases are recognized as major source for interpretation of the ICCPR and are “authoritative”)
13, supra note 20, at par. 7 available at http//www1.umn.edu/humnrts/gencomm.
See Maria vs McElroy 68 F. Supp. 2d 206, 232 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)
42
The presumption of innocence “cautions the jury to put away from their minds all the suspicion that arises from
the arrest, indictment, and arraignment, and to reach their conclusion solely from legal evidence adduced.”, 9 J.
Wigmore, Evidence (3rd edition) retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40708017?read-
now=1&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents
43
Ibid.
44
The Burden of Proof in Criminal Justice, Michael Hor, SING. ACAD. L.J. 267,268 (1992) retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40708017?read-now=1&seq=15#page_scan_tab_contents
45
Ibid at 268.
 2.1. Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Rules of Court and

the interpretations of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

In consonance with the constitutional provision providing presumption of

innocence, the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution 46 and the accused must then

be acquitted and set free should the prosecution not overcome such presumption. 47

Conversely, in convicting the accused all the elements of the crime charged must be

proven beyond reasonable doubt48 viz:

Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - x x x Proof beyond

reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty.
Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.49

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,

excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is

required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 50

The requirement of establishing the guilt of the accused in every criminal

proceeding beyond reasonable doubt has a long history that even pre-dates our

Constitutions. As summed up by jurisprudence of American origin:

The requirement that guilt of a criminal charge be

established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt dates at
least from our early years as a Nation. The 'demand for a
higher degree of persuasion in criminal cases was
recurrently expressed from ancient times, (though) its
crystallization into the formula 'beyond a reasonable doubt'
46
People v. Patentes, 726 Phil. 590, 606 (2014)
47
People v. Cruz, 736 Phil. 564, 580 (2014).
48
Ngo v. People, 478 Phil. 676, 680 (2004).
49
Rule 133, Rules of Court.
50
Capistrano Daayata, Dexter Salisi, And Bregido Mala Cat, Jr., Vs People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 205745,
March 8, 2017.
 seems to have occurred as late as 1798. It is now accepted
in common law jurisdictions as the measure of persuasion by
which the prosecution must convince the trier of all the
essential elements of guilt.51

The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has this vital role in our

criminal procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution has

at stake interest of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may

lose his liberty upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be

stigmatized by the conviction. Accordingly, a society that values the good name and

freedom of every individual should not condemn a man for commission of a crime when

there is reasonable doubt about his guilt. 52

The Court, citing the case of Speiser v. Randall53 emphasized that:

There is always in litigation a margin of error,

representing error in factfinding, which both parties must
take into account. Where one party has at stake an interest
of transcending value-as a criminal defendant his liberty-this
margin of error is reduced as to him by the process of
placing on the other party the burden of . . . persuading the
factfinder at the conclusion of the trial of his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. 

Moreover, use of the reasonable-doubt standard is indispensable to command

the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It is

critical that the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that

leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned. It is also important

in our free society that every individual going about his ordinary affairs have confidence

51
C. McCormick, Evidence 321, pp. 681-682 (1954); see also 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence, 2497 (3d ed.1940).
52
People Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Carlito Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017
53
357 U.S. 513, June 30, 1958
that his government cannot adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a

proper factfinder of his guilt with utmost certainty. 54

b.1.b. The Public Officers and their rights while being tried in a

criminal case before the Sandiganbayan

Public Officers being tried before the Sandiganbayan as accused are entitled to

the rights provided by the Constitution which include, among others, the right to be

presumed innocent before proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the right to due

process of law and the right to a fair and impartial trial 55. In the case Re: Request Radio-

TV Coverage of the Trial of in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against the

Former President Joseph E. Estrada56, the court emphasized the rationale on favoring

the application of the rights of an accused. In preferring the latter, it ruled that:

“With the possibility of losing not only the precious

liberty but also the very life of an accused, it behooves all to
make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict
solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a
verdict that would come only after the presentation of
credible evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses
unswayed by any kind of pressure, whether open or subtle,
in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might
detract from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from
improper influence,8 and decreed by a judge with an
unprejudiced mind, unbridled by running emotions or
passions.”
In case of clash as of the rights of the public, which in said case concerns

information of public concern, and the rights of the accused, the latter shall prevail. This

54
People Of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Carlito Claro, G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017.
55
Article 3, Section 14(2), 1987 Philippine Constitution, October 12, 1986.
56
A.M. No. 01-4-03-S.C., June 29, 2001.
is all in accord as the administration of justice goes by the saying that “It is better that

ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent to suffer. 57”

Absent any distinction provided by law, public officers are treated alike with

regular persons before the courts in cases of being charged of criminal offenses. Rights

of an accused do not only apply to normal or regular persons but also to those who are

in public office.

Further, the said case dealt with the weighing of the fundamental rights of the

accused with another constitutional guarantee of the right to public information 58. The

court ruled therein that when such rights race against one another, earlier decisions tell

that the right of the accused must be preferred to win.

In said Resolution, the Court cited the case of Estes vs Texas59 which settled the

issue as regards the television coverage of judicial proceedings. The United States

Supreme Court ruled therein that such coverage results to the prejudice and the

inherent denial of due process right of an accused. In reliance with such ruling, the

Court discussed the balancing of interest of the accused, the general public and the

court, viz:

The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom

of the press and the right to public information. It also
approves of media's exalted power to provide the most
accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the
proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with
the judicial process in action; nevertheless, within the
courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the
paramount right of the accused to due process which
must never be allowed to suffer diminution in its
constitutional proportions. Justice Clark thusly
pronounced, "while a maximum freedom must be allowed

57
Blackstone’s Ratio, William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
58
Article 3, Section 7, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
59
381 U.S. 532 (1965).
 the press in carrying out the important function of informing
the public in a democratic society, its exercise must
necessarily be subject to the maintenance
of absolute fairness in the judicial process."

c. Sandiganbayan’s Decision Making process

Sandiganbayan is a collegial court. It conducts its business and hears cases in a

collegial way and by divisions respectively. It is initially created composing of a

Presiding Justice and of eight (8) Associate Justices appointed by the President 60. Said

justices sit in three (3) divisions and was amended to have five (5) divisions 61. Upon the

promulgation of RA 8249, the number of associate justices rose from eight (8) to

fourteen (14)62 who still sits in five (5) divisions. The recent legislative amendments to

the Sandiganbayan law increased the number of divisions from five (5) to seven (7),

expanding the total size of the court from fifteen (15) to twenty-one (21) judges 63.

Justice Barredo64 in his concurring opinion in the case of Nunez mentioned that

he believes that the accused has a better guarantee of a real and full consideration of

evidence and determination of facts when there are three justices actually seeing and

observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. 65 Part of the thinking is that,

60
Section 1, Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
61
Section 1 (amending Section 3 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 7975, An Act To Strengthen The Functional And
Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Amending For That Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As
Amended, March 30, 1995.
62
Section 1 (amending Section 1 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 8249, An Act Further Defining The Jurisdiction Of
The Sandiganbayan, Amending For The Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds
Therefor, And For Other Purposes, February 5, 1997
63
Section 1 (amending Section 3 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 10660, An Act Strengthening Further The Functional
And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Further Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended,
And Appropriating Funds Therefor, April 16, 2015
64
Associate Justice Antonio P. Barredo. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines from December
17, 1968 to October 4, 1982.
65
Justice Barredo Concurring Opinion, Rufino V. Nuñez Petitioner, Vs.Sandiganbayan And People Of The
Philippines, G.R. Nos. L-50581-50617, January 30, 1982.
having Sandiganbayan Justices sit in panels was the idea that it would be harder to

improperly influence multiple judges. 66

No person shall be appointed Presiding Justice or Associate Justice of the

Sandiganbayan; unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least 40 years

of age and for at least ten years has been a judge of a court of record or been engaged

in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held office requiring admission to the bar

as a pre-requisite for a like period. 67 There are no special qualification requirements,

nor does the Judicial and Bar Council focus on experience in handling corruption cases

when vetting candidates. Although Sandiganbayan judges have access to judicial

training through the Philippine Judicial Academy and other programs, they do not

receive any special training focused specifically on corruption. The fact that

Sandiganbayan judges hear only corruption cases helps them gain expertise on the

job.68

During its first businesses by virtue of PD 1606, three (3) Justices constituted a

quorum for session in division.69 This was amended only by RA 10660 providing that

two (2) members shall constitute a quorum for sessions in divisions. The rule that when

the required quorum cannot be had due to the legal disqualification or temporary

disability of a Justice or of a vacancy occurring therein, the President shall, upon

recommendation of the Presiding Justice, designate any Justice of the Court of Appeals

or Judge of the Court of First Instance or of the Circuit Criminal Court of the judicial

district concerned to sit temporarily therein is also amended by the latter law which now
66
Matthew C. Stephenson, 2016, “Specialized anti-corruption courts: Philippines”, U4 Brief, 2016, p.1.
67
Section 1, Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
68
Matthew C. Stephenson, 2016, “Specialized anti-corruption courts: Philippines”, U4 Brief, 2016, p.3.
69
Section 3, Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
 provides that when the required quorum for the particular division cannot be had due to

the legal disqualification or temporary incapacity of a member or a vacancy therein, the

Presiding Justice may designate a member of another division to be determined by

strict rotation on the basis of the reverse order of precedence, to sit as a special

member of said division with all the rights and prerogatives of a regular member of said

division in the trial and determination of a case or cases assigned thereto. 70

Under RA 1606, it provides that unanimous vote of the three justices in a division

shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment. In the event that the three

justices do not reach a unanimous vote, the Presiding Judge shall designate two other

justices from among the members of the Court to sit temporarily with them, forming a

division of five justices, and the concurrence of a majority of such division shall be

necessary for rendering judgment.71 This has been the continued rule until the

promulgation of RA 10660 which now provides that all three (3) members of a division

shall deliberate on all matters submitted for judgment, decision, final order, or

resolution.

The concurrence of a majority or two (2) of the members of a division shall be

necessary to render a judgment, decision, or final order, or to resolve interlocutory or

incidental motions.72

As remedies, its revised rules provide for the filing for Motions for New Trial or

Reconsideration which shall be acted upon by the ponente and the other members of
70
Section 1 (amending Section 3 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 10660, An Act Strengthening Further The Functional
And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Further Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended,
And Appropriating Funds Therefor, April 16, 2015.
71
Section 5, Republic Act No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating A Special Court To Be Known As
"Sandiganbayan" And For Other Purposes, December 10, 1978.
72
Section 1 (amending Section 3 of RA 1606), Republic Act No. 10660, An Act Strengthening Further The Functional
And Structural Organization Of The Sandiganbayan, Further Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, As Amended,
And Appropriating Funds Therefor, April 16, 2015.
the division who participated in the decision or resolution sought to be considered,

irrespective of whether or not such members are already in other divisions at the time

the said motions were filed. They shall be deemed constituted as a Special Division of

the Division to which the ponente belonged at the time of the promulgation of the

decision or resolution.73

If the ponente is no longer a member of the Sandiganbayan or is disqualified or

has inhibited form acting on the motion, his or her replacement shall be chosen by raffle

from among the remaining members of the Division who participated and concurred in

the decision or resolution. If only one (1) member of the Division who participated and

concurred in the decision or resolution remains, such member shall be the ponente.74

In case the ponente and all members of the Division that rendered the decision

or resolution are no longer members of the Sandiganbayan, the new Chairperson may

assign the case to any member of the Division who shall act upon the motion with the

participation of the other members of the Division. 75

The Motion for Reconsideration shall be resolved by a Division by unanimous

vote of its members, and in case of a Special Division of five (5), by the concurrence of

at least three (3) of its members unless the offense is committed after the effectivity of

RA 10660.76

II. Related Studies

73
Section 2(a), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16, 2018.
74
Section 2(b), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16, 2018.
75
Section 2(e), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16, 2018.
76
Section 2(f), Rule 10, Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. 13-7-05-SB, effective November, 16, 2018.
 A study entitled “Presumed Guilty: Balancing Competing Rights and Interests in

Combating Economic Crimes”77 examines the juridical basis of the right of an accused

in a corruption action to be presumed by the prosecution and the rationale of fixing this

right, which is guaranteed to all accused persons, by shifting the burden to the accused

to disprove his guilt in order to advance an overriding public interest. 78

It particularly intends to find out whether in official corruption proceedings, the

right of an accused to be presumed innocent of the crime he is charged is an absolute

right that is not subject to any derogation, or whether the presumption of innocence

simply enjoys preeminence among all other individual rights such that any derogation

from it in the context of global war against corruption is permissible. 79

The study finds that while it remains the primary responsibility of the prosecution

to prove the guilt of an accused, reasonable deviations will be allowed from the strict

application of this principle so long as there is a rational link between the presumed fact

and the proved fact and the presumption is a proportional response to the social

problem being addressed such as drug trafficking, corruption or money-laundering 80;

that restrictions on the presumption of innocence in the war of corruption will be justified

provided that they pursue a legitimate goal and are proportionate to that goal 81; that in

illicit enrichment cases, the accused is likely to enjoy considerable advantages in terms

of access to relevant information, which creates an imbalance to the detriment of the

prosecution in breach of the equality-of-arms principle 82; and that the unusual long time

77
Kofele-Kale, N. (2006). Presumed Guilty: Balancing Competing Rights and Interests in Combating Economic
Crimes. The International Lawyer, 40(4), 909-944. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40708017
78
Ibid. at 914.
79
Ibid. at 914.
80
Ibid. at 932.
81
Ibid. at 933.
82
Ibid. at 940.
it takes to resolve these corruption cases probably accounts for demands in some

jurisdictions to do away with the presumption of innocence in this cases 83.

In light with the discussions in the study, it holds that corruption wreaks

unspeakable havoc on victim states and their populations. Persons in positions of public

trust who engage in such activity should not be allowed to take shelter behind the

principle of presumption of innocence. Where wider public interests are implicated, it

says that the society should be prepared to accept certain limitations on individual

rights. Limitations must be a proportional response to the social problem being

addressed, should go no further than is reasonably necessary to safeguard the targeted

public interest and should operate in re-establishing parity of arms between the state

and the accused official84.

The study recommends that in corruption proceedings, where the evidence

required to establish a crime is within the control of the accused, courts should require

that this party bear the initial burden of production 85 and that the accused public official

should be made to assume a significant burden in going forward with evidence while

allowing the state to be able to prove its case on the less stringent balance of

probabilities standard.86 Lastly, it emphasized that the burden of coming forward with

explanations on how they came about with their stupendous wealth ought to be placed

on such officials and not on the state. 87

83
Ibid. at 941.
84
Ibid. at 944.
85
Ibid. at 936.
86
Ibid. at 940.
87
Ibid. at 944.